J S-6

2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 SAM NOBLE, Case No.: SACV 23-02223-CJC (JDEx) ? Plaintiff ats ORDER SUA SPONTE DISMISSING 13 Vv CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 4 ° MATTER JURISDICTION

5 FLEETWOOD RV INC.; REV

RECREATION GROUP, INC.; LA

16 || MESSA R.V. CENTER, INC.; AND 17 | DOES 1 to 25, 18 Defendants. 19 oC) 20 1 In his complaint, Plaintiff, a California citizen, alleges that this “Court has subject matter 99 || jurisdiction over [his] claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 due to diversity of citizenship and an 33 amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Specifically, there is diversity of citizenship 94 || between Plaintiff and at least one Defendant ....” (Dkt. 1 [Compl.] 4] 7—8 [emphasis added].) 95 || That is not the standard for diversity jurisdiction. 26 . oe ge . ous . As the party asserting jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving 2 ge ge ' federal jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 28 . □□□ ge □□□ (1994). Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction over cases between “citizens of a State

1 |{and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). “Section 1332 has 2 ||been interpreted to require ‘complete diversity.”” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 3 ||U.S. 574, 580 n.2 (1999); see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 4 (2005) (“[T]he presence ... of a single plaintiff from the same State as a single 5 defendant deprives the district court of original diversity jurisdiction.”). For diversity 6 || purposes, a corporation is a citizen of (1) the state where its principal palace of business is 7 || located and (2) the state in which it is incorporated. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1); see Johnson v. 8 || Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899-900 (9th Cir. 2006). 9 10 From the face of the Complaint, it is clear that there 1s not complete diversity 11 || between the parties. After alleging his own California citizenship, Plaintiff later alleges 12 || that “Defendant La Messa R.V. Center, Inc.[ is] headquartered in ... San Diego, 13 || California[.]” (Compl. 415.) Therefore, Plaintiff and at least one defendant are citizens 14 || of California, meaning there is not complete diversity as required for this Court to 15 ||exercise jurisdiction here. Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden to show that this Court 16 || has jurisdiction over this action. See, e.g., Qingdao Youli Century Guarantee Co. v. 17 || Shaogiang Chen, 2018 WL 6264971, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2018) (addressing diversity 18 || jurisdiction sua sponte and dismissing complaint where Plaintiff failed to sufficiently 19 ||allege complete diversity); Kashfian v. Abrams, 2013 WL 12138852, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 20 || Apr. 8, 2013) (dismissing complaint where, “construing the allegations in [the] 21 || Complaint as true, Plaintiff cannot establish diversity, because she is not diverse 22 || from all Defendants’). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 23 || this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 24 25 DATED: December 6, 2023 Ko fr 26 gp _ (77 27 CORMAC J. CARNEY 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE